Preface

33
collected more than their allocated shares; this is not stated either in the notice of
appeal or in the course of hearing the appeal. He also submitted also that in reality
there is no objection against the scheme used by the lower court in the distribution
process or that it committed an error. That the only objection is that the deceased
estate was not divided as it is. As it is? Only two compounds the deceased left and
these were divided accordingly.
The respondent’s counsel argued further that his colleague’s assertion that
Aji Hawa Sillah has not received her share of the compound at Dippa Kunda does
not really mean that the compound was not divided or that she did not receive her
rightful share from the estate and vice versa. Dividing an estate means that each
inheritor receives his or her definite share of the total value of the inheritable
property and this has actually happened. The role of this court, the counsel
submitted further, is to confirm or not to confirm the correctness of this process
and when this process is endorsed, there is no any reason for the annulment of the
decision already rendered.
On ground 2 of the grounds of appeal, that the lower Islamic Court coerced
the respective inheritors in their choices, it is submitted by the respondent’s
counsel that that is not true since at page 12 of the record the lower court asked the
appellant if she had any more thing to say and she replied that she wants to bring
this matter to an end and that she wants to repair the zink in the house before the
rainy season. He submitted further that this response shows that the appellant
accepted her choice of the compound at Banjul. The counsel argued further that
this assertion cannot be true also since the Cadi has stated what share each
inheritor is entitled to and if the inheritor receives his or her share in accordance
with the allocation, then he has received what he or she is entitled to. The attorney
illustrated the point further by citing an example of where a man left an indivisible